|
Note to mods: You know who I am. I'm a libertarian who is staring his own thread, which is acceptable according to the rules, I assume? There are two reasons I want to start a specific thread rather than retread over the "other" libertarian thread and just post comments there. In the first place, I want this discussion to be more narrow in scope. And I want to say something at the beginning that everyone will have a chance to read. On Caros's thread, he specifically poisoned the well from the very beginning by writing an OP describing libertarianism and its adherents in an unflattering and, from my perspective, misleading way. By the time I first posted on that thread, there had already been something like two hundred pages of people making GBS threads on libertarianism before I had a chance to defend it. And since the thread was almost entirely directed at me in particular (it would not exist without my having posted here in the past), you can understand how I'd like to have a bit more discretion about the framing of the debate when I am outnumbered 30 to 1. If there is any problem with me posting my own topic, I will cease and you can remove it. But if I don't break any clearly stated rules, I hope you would welcome a libertarian voice here in the service of a full discussion rather than a self serving bias-reinforcing circle jerk, something that is far too common. I have no doubt that whatever confines I initially set out to limit the scope of discussion, it will soon expand out on dozens of directions covering every element of libertarianism. But I'd like to describe libertarianism a bit differently from how you may have heard it described in the past. The central theme of this OP is property, what is it, what constitutes legitimate property rights and what is the origin and function of private property rights? The real distinction between libertarians and nearly everyone else is not their opposition to the State since there are anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who also oppose the existence of States. It is not even our belief in the non-aggression principle. Rather, as you probably guessed, it is our understanding of private property that sets us apart. After all, how can you know what constitutes an act of aggression if you can't clearly articulate between what is mine versus what is yours? It is often stated by misinformed left-Progressives that libertarians or other free market advocates have a fetish for private property rights; that we elevate property as a right above human rights, that our insistence on private ownership creates conflict between those who have more and those who have less and encourages human greed and alienation between different groups of people. As to the first claim, this one is always amusing because it is so crystal clear to a libertarian that there is no meaningful distinction between property rights and human rights. But much more important is the fact that we recognize that a correct understanding of private property is essential to a flourishing, healthy society and that human progress is inexorably linked with a legal recognition of private property claims. The reader should be disabused of the notion that libertarians have some obsession with private property or criticize public, or society-"owned" property based on any shallow ideological grounds. The reason we oppose socialism is that its core tenets are in conflict with observable reality. Were reality to be different than it is, libertarians would gladly abandon the concept of private property (outside of our physical bodies) as meaningless and of no use. For example, suppose we lived in a mythical "Garden of Eden", a paradise where everything that people desire was available in super-abundance. Everyone could satisfy all their needs an desires and no-ones use of any resource would in any way hinder anyone else's ability to use that resource. In such a theoretical world, property would cease to have any meaning in external objects outside of our physical bodies. Our bodies would remain scarce, and so we'd still need to have a property right in those (i.e. no assault, murder, rape). The reason property rights are so incredibly essential is that we live in a world of scarcity. In such a world, the desires, wants and needs of humans will always exceed the available goods needed to fulfill all our desires simultaneously. Therefore situations inevitably arise where two or more people want to use the same scarce resource to achieve two completely incompatible desired ends. This inevitable human conflict that arises from the reality of scarcity necessitated the acceptance of norms, or rules for determining who had the right to exclusive control over what scarce resource. Without this developing and widespread recognition by early human civilizations of basic private property rights, the emergence of modern industrial society, of production, commerce, agriculture and all the trappings of civilization would never have been possible. Humans would have remained perpetually in conflict, as primitive hunter gatherers living at a subsistence level. This should not be controversial. If we can agree on the vital necessity of the recognition of private property rights for human evolution and survival, then what rules ought to be in place for the attainment of legitimate property that should be legally enforced? The libertarian answer is that the first user to appropriate a resource out of its naturally environment and transform and improve it for the furtherance of his well-being has the best claim to ownership of that scarce resource. This, as you already know, has been referred to as the homestead principle. And it predated John Locke as a recognized norm in primitive civilizations millennia before he coined the phrase for the modern science of economics to make sense of an existed social phenomena. Had any other principle of property ownership and use-rights been adopted, the human race would have died off. This is not hyperbole. Let's suppose not the first user of something has the right to exclusive control of a scarce resource, but rather that the fifth user was the one who had that right. How could we eat? If I'm the first person to claim ownership of a coconut tree, or a water spring, but I don't have any property right in that thing, then I wouldn't be able to justly use that scarce resource. I'd starve and die of thirst. We'd all have to wait around for the fifth user of everything. Naturally, humans desired above all else to survive and improve their condition. And it makes intuitive and logical sense to most people to give the earlier user precedence over a later user. Once this recognition of property rights was recognized, not perfectly but to a large enough extent, great strides in living standards were made immediately available to the human race. Suddenly a division of labor was possible, free exchange was made possible and barter soon led to the development of the first currency. People could save in excess of their immediate consumption needs because they knew that they had the legally recognized and enforceable right to their property. Conflict was reduced and peaceful cooperation was encouraged. Given the reality of scarcity, what humans need more than anything else are social rules and a legal system that facilitates ever greater material production such that people can attain more and more of their needs and desires. What we are essentially doing is moving towards less and less scarcity through greater and greater productive capacity in modern economies. This, of course, should be considered a great thing for human welfare all around. Left-progressives frequently speak about the plight of the poor and the continuing social problems that exist throughout much of the world. However, the engine that drives the greatest and most robust increase in society-wide wealth for everyone is one in which property is private and the division of labor, capital accumulation, investment and a free price system are permitted to function unhampered. I've asked for a better and more coherent method by which property should be acquired other than original appropriation and I have not heard an answer. I'm going to throw in a curve-ball here and talk about another so-called "property" right that isn't actually property at all. That is what is called Intellectual Property. Libertarians oppose the existence of so-called "intellectual property" at all. But why would that be? The reason is that property is only a coherent and useful concept when it applies to things that are scarce. Copying a movie cannot be theft if you owned the original that you made a copy from. No one else was deprived of any physical possession whatsoever. Since copying can be done, theoretically infinitely, without depriving anyone of their copy, there is no scarcity and no theft. Patents on inventions present a similar case. Ideas are not scarce. If you freely share an idea and someone emulates or improves upon that idea, society is all the better off. Society has been made incalculably poorer and many corporations unjustly wealthier than they ought to be because of this grotesque State-monopoly privilege known as intellectual "property". Therefore things that are not scarce can indeed be held in the "commons", and in fact society is much better when we have socialism for ideas and computer data for example. Left-progressives frequently rail about the need for a legally mandated "right" to a service like healthcare forgetting or never understanding in the first place how the services needed to supply the growing human need are most efficiently produced and allocated. You might have an abstract "right" to a heart surgery, but if the sort of economic system and the State regulations and mandates heaped upon it don't produce enough hospitals, doctors and medical equipment, you won't get the care you need despite what politicians might claim. If you're concern is largely for the material well-being of society's most vulnerable, surely you'd want the economy to be as physically productive as possible? The problem facing the poor is not that they make $8.50 and not $15 an hour. The problem is that they don't have enough basic "stuff" to give them a reasonable standard of living. And why don't they? They economy is not physically productive enough to provide them with needed and desired goods or there are artificial impediments to employment and/or entrepreneurship that constrains their available options. A problem with "democracy" and all forms of collective ownership either of the factory or of public spaces is that use for such resources is heavily constrained by the need for consensus to act. If all workers owned factories together, endless meetings and deliberations would be required to make any decisions about the use of capital and production. Furthermore, conflict is enhanced rather than reduced. Who would REALLY have the final say on the use of collectively owned property? Well, no one does. All this wasted energy determining the best use of scarce resources leads to a tortoises pace to decisions that otherwise would be made by individual owners of these resources rather rapidly. This leads to paralysis and loss of productive capacity. If everyone can determine the use of property they own and put it to productive use immediately or trade it to another in an exchange immediately, the economy is made wealthier and decisions are made quickly by individuals who bear the personal responsibility for risking their capital and ONLY their capital in the effort. I've spoken about the Tragedy of the Commons in the past, but that is one more effect of property not being privately owned. When no one has a financial incentive to maintain the capital value of a piece of property, everyone has an incentive to overuse that property, even towards ecological destruction. This was the story of the American Buffalo which was hunted to the brink of extinction when it was a part of the "commons" yet made a major comeback once private entrepreneurs homesteaded the animals and judiciously decided which to kill for meat and which to breed to replenish the livestock for future generations and future profit opportunities. If we lived in an alternate universe without scarcity, then collective ownership of everything would make sense. No libertarian would dogmatically demand we maintain the concept of private property and homesteading with legal arbitration services if all goods existed in superabundance. If scarcity ceased being a limiting factor, then property would similarly cease being an important concept. There is a reason we don't parcel out oxygen rights for the air we breath. Oxygen is not scarce in any practical sense as it applies to human needs. Every human can breath as much as they want without limiting the ability of anyone else to breath as much as they want. As society becomes wealthier and more physically productive, people are more able to engage in charity and goods naturally become more "common" and shared freely. Scarcity and private property rights become much more important as concepts that closer people are to a subsistence level of existence. A person starving in Africa really loving needs you to recognize his property right in a loaf of bread he acquired and don't even think of asking him to share. But more prosperous societies have the luxury of freely sharing goods that are produced in such abundance that we feel less urgency about attaining what we need to live at a decent standard of living. I'd like you to explain to me the problem with the libertarian understanding of private property. And how, in a world of scarcity, that socialism is a feasible or coherent system? How could the human race have survived without the first-user principle of property acquisition being at least tacitly acknowledged? Left-Progressives always tout the "successes" of social democracies like Sweden or the social welfare State in the United States, but they always (as Scott Horton likes to say) "truncate and antecedents". You know what the best way to attain a small fortune? Start with a large fortune and squander some of your wealth. In example after example, left-progressives tout the relative wealth of modern-day Sweden or post FDR United States forgetting or never understanding that these countries that remain reasonably wealthy and can bear the burden of the socialistic demands on the economy have all, without any notable exceptions, had a lengthy history of laissez-faire free market fueled growth for decades and decades before their governments made a left turn and decided to implement a welfare State. This is absolutely true of the United States from the Industrial Revolution until the Progressive Era of the early to mid 20th century and it is also true of Sweden which had an incredibly laissez-faire free market economy during much of the same period of time and, even after their nominal shift leftward during the mid-20th century, the bulk of the socialist program so loved by leftist commentators is barely forty years old. Getting your cause and effect reasoning straight would do wonders to improve your understanding of these historical events. I'll leave it here for now. I want to try, at least initially, to limit the discussion to property rights as understood by libertarians, and their need under conditions of scarcity. I'd like to hear competing theories of initial property acquisition that make more sense that the first-user principle if you reject that theory. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Oct 12, 2015 |
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Fados posted:Even Marx said societies had to go through capitalism to then get to socialism, so I don't see the problem there. There are very few people today who actually advocate State ownership over the means of production. Anyone who has studied the matter for five minutes could tell you about the disaster of communism. My comments were directed to those left-Progressives who advocate "social democracy" and cite examples such as Sweden and 1950s-1960s United States as great examples of the State "creating" great prosperity and building a middle class. My point is that the wealth enjoyed in such oft cited countries came into existence almost entirely due to lengthy periods of laissez-faire. No welfare States, only property rights and a market economy. People who fail to credit the market economy for the wealth generated in places like Sweden are the people I am concerned with. Second, and this should be quite obvious, having a legal right to property which you appropriated first from the state of nature of course does not keep any decent person from sharing the property which they have acquired. It is entirely reasonable and moral for the person who finds an apple, and already has sufficient nutrition to sustain his own life, to share the food with a person who is starving. Such an act would be virtuous and worthy of praise. But he still has the right to NOT do such a thing. And people of good will who witness him acting callously towards human suffering can choose to disassociate from that person.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:What's the One True Libertarian doctrine say about returning stolen American land to its legitimate owners? If any ancestors of Native American tribes can demonstrate evidence that certain property was stolen from their ancestors, then it should be returned to them. This can't be some abstract and vague assertion though. People who doubtless occupy the disputed lands today had nothing to do with previous Americans treatment of Native peoples. However, if they are in possession of stolen land, they can be made to move because the earlier user of a good has precedence. If the earlier user did not freely trade away land rights, then he or his direct descendants have a better claim to just ownership than subsequent owners even if they had no knowledge that they were being sold stolen goods. Let's suppose I own a Rolex watch (I don't) and someone steals it from me. Then he sells it to you and you have no knowledge that the watch was stolen. But suppose I see you wearing the watch and I know that the watch is in fact my property and I can prove it. Maybe my initials are engraved on the back or something. Should you be legally forced to give the watch back to me? Yes, absolutely. You were taken advantage of and cheated but the fact remains that the watch is my property because I didn't voluntarily part with it. Your beef is with the person who stole your money by selling you a stolen item that he had no right to sell. You have to have him arrested and forced to make restitution for your troubles. This is the same principle that applies to land ownership, even land ownership claims that are very old. But those who wish to overturn existing property rights must have the burden of proof on them to prove just ownership and the farther back in history the alleged theft took place the harder it is to prove it. The exception to this is property owned by the State. State property is inherently illegitimate because a "state" cannot homestead land. Only individuals can do that. States violate property rights and, even if the original owners whose land was stolen by the State cannot be identified, the property must still (according to libertarian theory) be transferred to private hands. The only just way to do this, in my view, is to follow the principle of syndicalism. If no original owner (or descendant) can be identified as having homesteaded the land when it was seized by the State, then the second most just way to allocate the property into private hands is to grant it to the workers who work the land. The factories to the factory owners, the farms to the farmers, the State function buildings to the workers employed there, etc. Since these people have worked on these lands, which are stolen, they have in theory homesteaded some legitimate claim to ownership if a previous just owner cannot be identified.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:As everyone else has mentioned your post is all over the place and doesn't clearly answer any questions. But to try to answer in good faith, I think the problem is that for a lot of this you seem to have these unrealistic ideological tenets that you hold to without having thought them through. The issue I am trying to get across is that if you took a situation where humans are suffering in abject poverty and starvation in a third world African country and your solution is simply for them to implement redistributive policies that take the wealth of the dictator and the (relatively speaking) "wealthy" and divided that money between the poor people of that country, you would have hardly helped anyone. Redistributing wealth in a tiny pie where there is not much wealth to go around skirts the real issue. Yes, if tyrants run your government and hoard all the wealth that does exist, they can seem relatively comfortable. And there is no question they ought to be ousted from power and are clearly exploiters of the poor and everyone else who isn't a member of the dictator's regime. What needs to be done then is for such an African country to implement wise reforms which enable the internal wealth of the society to expand. History teaches that for prosperity to be generated most effectively, certain features must apply to the system of government a society chooses. In the first place, property rights must be legally recognized and arbitration of disputes must be based on these rights. If people are constantly fearing for their lives or afraid of thieves, then needless to say they won't save much money. Second, the money itself must be relatively stable. This doesn't have to be a hard money standard per se, although the libertarians would make the case that that would be best, but it surely cannot be a Zimbabwe style inflation machine where the currency loses value at a rapid pace. And Third, the State must be kept to a minimum, keeping the peace but staying out of the affairs of the private economy allowing entrepreneurs to set up and establish businesses quickly without interference. This doesn't have to be some libertarian anarchist paradise, but the last half century has taught us (some of us at least) that liberal reforms of previously authoritarian nations have lead to drastic reductions in poverty and the creation of considerable wealth and middle classes. Look at the example of Hong Kong and how it compared to Mainland China for one example. The more economic freedom a nation has, the more prosperity can be generated. The reason people are starving in places like Africa is that they lack the sort of economies and political policies that allow them to produce enough goods and services to effectively feed their populations. Just taking money from richer people and giving it to poorer people in Africa doesn't solve this essential problem. Even Foreign Aid has proved disastrous. It would be better in the long run to teach people in the Third World about free market economics and private property where they can reform their societies along the lines of laissez-faire and follow the example of Hong Kong and other small nations who grew very wealthy even surrounded by authoritarian States. Let me clarify one thing though. I don't oppose collective ownership of businesses if they are voluntarily formed. I recognize that peaceful collectives can function well in some circumstances. But taking an anecdote and extrapolating it out to how an entire economy might function if ALL businesses where democratically controlled and collectively owned is beyond foolish. I shop at a health food co-op and it is great, but do I think this is how a business like Google should operate? Of course not! Employees at Google might have some fantastic ideas but if they are unsatisfied with the decisions made by the board of directors and CEO, then they can break away and start their own business based on their own ideas, risking their own capital. And this happens all the time. I can't believe that you don't think that having to achieve democratic consensus for every single business decision would not slow down decision making and make the market inefficient. In the first place, what would make you think that every employee SHOULD have a say in decisions about how the business should be run? As an employee, you might know how to do a few specific tasks well, but are you going to have any educated idea about how to compete against Microsoft in the market? Which advertisement campaign is market tested and most efficient? There is a division of labor in the economy, and successful businesses hire specific marketing research people to help the ownership make important decisions about the company. And VERY successful businesses are headed by CEOs who are often visionary and uniquely gifted in anticipating consumer demand. What if Steve Jobs decided to democratically survey each and every Apple employee and go with whatever the majority wanted when designing the iPhone? It doesn't make any sense. If people want to voluntarily form co-operatives in the free market, that is perfectly fine. Up to a certain scale they can work reasonably well, and in some sectors of the economy better than others. But the impetus behind much of leftism is the notion that the entrepreneur/employee relationship is either inherently exploitative or someway or another seriously defective and should be generally looked upon with suspicion is what I am opposing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, but I want him to say it because it's funny. Also I want to lead him towards admitting that, like all libertarians, he will gladly support either fascist police states or lynch mob justice so long as he is on the side doing the oppressing and not the side being oppressed. Define "oppression". There's no reason to respond to a post like this but it makes a clear point nonetheless. You know the libertarian ideology fairly well by now after all that I've posted. You obviously cannot think that any libertarian would support a fascist police state. Remember the loving non-aggression principle I remind you of every other post?! It is literally the starting point of libertarian ethics. Have you ever heard of a fascist police state that doesn't aggress against people? A discussion in a waste of time if you are not arguing in good faith. You state something you know is not true because you are hell bent on impugning the character of libertarians. You think we all just have a secret desire to oppress people and are using this high-minded rhetoric as a license to do it. This is not a good faith debate tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I forgot one of the arguments we brought up last time Jrod brought up his dumb Homestead Theory. Let's assume that there's worthwhile land to homestead outside of Antarctica or whatever, and let's assume that some group of people go and Mix Their Labor with the Land and claim it. It's theirs now, they have all the property rights. They and their families move out there and make a little town. Great. Then some other group comes in and murders them all. No survivors. Who the hell gets the property rights then? It obviously can't go to the murderers, since they didn't homestead the land or acquire it fairly. Does it revert to being unclaimed? In which case, it will probably be claimed by whoever is nearby, which is the murderers again. Does it become somehow beyond claim? Do we trace the founders' lineage back to some rando who the founders didn't even know and who's never even heard of the place? You are stipulating that the settlers don't have any friends or family that would notice that they never made contact again and would want to know what happened to them? Obviously if some people get murdered out in the middle of nowhere and nobody ever finds out about it, then they got away with it. If the murderers abandoned the property after the raid, then anyone who came later could claim ownership of the abandoned buildings. On the other hand, if the murderers did decide to settle into the property and claim it as their own and new settlers found out about their crime, then they should be charged with murder. Theoretically, they should have no just claim to property, but in the middle of nowhere in a small community of a few hundred settlers, there would exist no mechanism for enforcing this claim. New settlers, or anyone acting on behalf of the murdered citizens could muster enough strength of arms to rout the murders out of their property and try them for their crime. They would be justified in doing so. I'm sure you're thinking "what is the difference between abandoned property which can be homesteaded by others and absentee property where the owner is simply not present at the moment but retains rights over its use? This is a good question and there is no exact perfect answer. I mean, if new settlers come across a small village or house and there are no inhabitants to be found, what do they do? Must they wait forever before they decide that the owners have either died or long since abandoned its upkeep? Private property is "public" in one important feature. The owner, in order to maintain his or her use rights over the property, must make a clear distinction on where the property borders are. A fence must be erected for example or a sign posted. The purpose of property is to be easily identified by others, so that they can avoid trespassing. If a piece of property is abandoned and left to crumble and decay, and no effort is being made whatsoever to maintain the look of occupied and privately owned property, then a reasonable person will assume that such property has no present owner. This of course does NOT apply in metropolitan areas and in current heavily populated areas where there are always clear laws about property transfers. After all, cities don't allow property to be available for homesteading if an old man dies and has no heir. There are specific methods for addressing this in most cities and States. But in theory, this is what libertarians support.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Goddammit dickeye stop posting the things I was going to post. You know, I could say the exact same thing about any one of you. "you will absolutely refuse to retain any facts about history, economics, ethics, or reality in general that isn't convenient for you and your perpetual state of delusional idiocy". I mean, I've spoken with you a whole lot and you STILL don't agree with me? The reality is that smart people have lengthy discussions and debates with each other for literally DECADES without either party changing his or her mind on their core ideology. So, you just come off as obnoxious with this type of post.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 08:36
|
|
poison the well against you
|
Caros posted:Alright, wife's in bed, laptop has power and there is wi-fi I can crib off my phone. Lets do this. Lysaaaaaaander Spooooooner! You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day. I doubt you would take the same stand if the majority decided that it was right and proper to enslave some minority and force them to work hard labor for no wages. So obviously majority rule is no standard by which principled ethics ought to be determined. The first user principle is not arbitrary because it is derived logically from a previous moral principle, which is that of individual self-ownership. Let's term it "body-ownership" since "self" can be misleading to some people. What we are referring to here is that people should have the right to control over their own physical bodies. Whether or not you quibble over the use of "property right" as applied to peoples right to control their bodies, the claims are the same. I (as should everyone) should have the right to control my body as I see fit unless my actions aggress against another persons body or property (leaving aside our differences about what constitutes just property titles external to our bodies). Therefore, what I choose to eat or ingest should be up to me and me alone. When I go to sleep and get up in the morning should be my determination. When or if I exercise, who I decide to date or have sex with, are all things that individuals should have the final say on. Do you agree with this so far? Do you accept the principle that people ought to have the final say in the use of their physical bodies so long as they don't harm others? If you do NOT accept self-ownership, then your moral theory has some very serious problems that you have to account for. There would be no principled reason to oppose slavery or rape or murder. Sure you could try and make a utilitarian case for why it would be a net negative for society to permit these things, but it is easy to imagine situations where utilitarians could argue for such violations of human rights. Maybe slavery was found to be incredibly efficient in certain circumstances? What if an economist could demonstrate that a certain level of enslavement of physically gifted individuals would slightly raise the GDP if they were forced to work in certain jobs without pay? Or imagine a eugenicist arguing that it was okay to murder all mentally handicapped persons because they don't contribute much to society from a productivity standpoint, they require a huge amount of care for their entire lives and they "contaminate" the gene pool if they reproduce by passing along so-called "inferior" genes to future generations. These are obviously morally repugnant views but still there are a million ways to construct a utilitarian justification for their implementation. If you give up on the right of self-ownership, then what are you left to fall back on if a consequentialist has a stronger case in a given situation? I am quite sure that you didn't decide that murder is wrong because you studied the utilitarian effects and long term consequences for society for killing different groups of people some might consider "undesirable". Like most decent people, I assume that your view is that people have certain rights as human beings that ought to be respected, which includes not being murdered, raped or enslaved. This conception of "Natural Rights" had a great deal of influence on the founding of the United States and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It animated most abolitionists who fought to end slavery and grant equal rights to blacks in the United States. Whether or not these rights exist in nature, or are mere practical constructions of man is not as important as you think it is. We argue for certain ethical rules for civilized society based on our reason, the coherence of our arguments and the nature of man. Pretty much all religious and spiritual traditions teach that there is something inherently immoral about the taking of an innocent life. There has been a long-standing acknowledgment of the principle of self-ownership throughout the centuries. I hope you do agree with me that people should have the right to control their own bodies and not have force used against their bodies. So when determining how people are to acquire legitimate property outside of their physical bodies, the reason the libertarian principle of "original appropriation" makes the most sense is that there exists a tangible link between a person's ownership over his or her physical body and the external object that is brought into ownership. By plucking an untouched object out of nature and transforming it for your use, to further the attainment of your goals, you have thus imprinted your "self", which you own if you believe in self-ownership, onto a material object. Like a sculptor who carves a statue or a painter who paints a picture, the object that is transformed has an impression of you in it. So in what sense could any other person have a better claim over the use of such a scarce resource that the one who initially transformed it? Until he or she voluntarily gives it up in a contractual exchange of course. Now, collective ownership is not impermissible in a libertarian society. Individuals can freely contract with a group of others to enter into a partnership over the ownership of a piece of land, or a factory. There is nothing wrong with this. But someone had to originally have a claim on whatever property they are considering making into a collective. And that person, or people, who originally homesteaded the property must voluntarily enter into a contractual partnership to have a collective ownership. A group of people cannot simply decide that they ought to own part of some land and force the original owner to vacate the land they homesteaded. If you do accept people's right to universal control over their physical bodies so long as they don't hurt others, and you don't have to accept the phrase "ownership" to accept this general idea, then you ought to accept the notion that property rights in external objects should be in some way linked to this antecedent principle which hopefully has been agreed to. So original appropriation is not just as defensible as any other system of property acquisition, it is much more defensible because it logically follows the acknowledgment of self-ownership which most people actually DO accept.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 08:22
|
|
if you keep opening up with posts like this one.
) in the same way that I can sell my house because I cannot physically give up possession of my body. Beyond that however, I refer you to my very large argument above where I discuss the fact that property rights are an utter fiction created by people. There is no property right to "Caros" out there, if only because we as a society honestly believe that is a stupid loving thing. You are certainly entitled to believe the way you want, but stop acting like something is a universal fact when it is in fact only part of your weird pseudo-cult and not accepted by anyone outside of it.
|
SedanChair posted:Or they can choose to take it from him and give it away. This is moral and correct. No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. But let me ask this. Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Why shouldn't all the richer countries be forced to give up any of their "excess" wealth and transfer it to poorer countries until everyone on the planet is materially equal? If we speak about the abuse of the 1%, WE are the global 1% and are just as fabulously wealthy to a poor person living in North Korea or some African nation rune by an authoritarian regime than a Wall Street banker seems to us. There is no logical reason why your line of thinking ought not to lead to a world government that redistributes money across the globe, which would naturally mean a massive transfer from the West to Eastern nations and a drastic reduction in our standard of living in the United States and Canada, and much of Europe for that matter. But most socialists done take their views to the logical conclusion. Why is that?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Jesus Christ. I mis-typed that. I meant "the factories to the factory workers". If this sounds strange for a libertarian to be parroting Marxist sounding remedies, it ought not be if you think it through. For a libertarian (at least the anarchist libertarian), all State-owned property is inherently illegitimate and must have been acquired through theft. Now, if an original homesteader cannot be found to return stolen property to, but the evidence is irrefutable that the property WAS stolen, then at the very least the thief must vacate the land. There is a very real danger that, if we suddenly get a situation where we can downsize or abolish the State, as a last minute "reform" the State will simply auction off the public lands to big corporations who will now own massive amounts of land in a libertarian society. This is intolerable because the State had no right to sell this land to anyone since they had no just property title to the land in the first place. The second best option is for the land to be parceled out among the State employees and individual workers who actually worked on the property. Based on how much they worked and what they did, the amount of land to which they are entitled will vary. But this approach means that public land will be privatized in a just and equitable way, not as a last minute crony capitalist giveaway. I'll end this by mentioning that Hans Hermann Hoppe actually wrote about this principle. I don't want to hear anything about how you think Hoppe is a racist or whatever else. That is a different discussion and I am not interested in going down that path. The fact remains that I agree with this principle wholeheartedly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:Its a long story that you can find in the libertarian thread, but the short answer is that I had a very good friend who lived in the US who found out she had cancer. Considering her age and the stage at which it was discovered her survival rate with treatment was something like 95% over five years, 90% over 10 years and so on. It was the type of cancer you get better from. The problem is that she lived in the US and wasn't wealthy. In the first place, as I'm sure you are now aware, the "factories to the factory owners" phrase was a typo and I meant to write "factories to the factory workers". Given the context of the quote, and the fact that I mentioned its relationship to Marxist rhetoric, you probably could have assumed that it was a typo. Syndicalism is a second best option for returning public property to private ownership. In the absence of proof of who held the original just property claims, the closest standard by which individuals could be considered to have homesteaded the land are the government employees and/or individual contractors who worked on the lands. Assuming the original homesteaders or their descendants cannot be found, dividing the land up among the individuals who worked on the lands is a second best option. Some public lands might be simply made open to individual homesteading. That is, the State declares the lands unowned and announces a date by which individuals can travel and homestead the land by building homes, farms, etc. What the State should NOT be permitted to do in my view is to sell the land or to choose arbitrarily which people to grant property titles to. If the State cannot legitimately own property, then they cannot legitimately sell that which they don't own. Your objection to the homesteading principle vis a vis the Native Americans strikes me as odd. There is no question that early European settlers disregarded any legitimate property rights of the native peoples, repeatedly broke treaties they signed with them and proceeded to wipe out vast numbers in a genocide while herding the rest of them onto State appointed reservations as if they were livestock, dehumanizing them. The narrative you are bending over backwards to create is that the homestead principle is some elitist European idea that was designed to allow white people to colonize and steal land and resources from darker skinned people. The genocide of the American Indians ran contrary to every tenet of Enlightenment-Era liberalism and Natural Rights Theory. The legacy of white supremacy and patriarchy unfortunately carried over into the new world, despite the pretty words written into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You are wrong to believe that Native Americans had no concept of private property or that it wasn't possible to reasonably respect the rights that they did have. There is one thing that is clear though. Not even the most liberal and generous notion of property rights conceivable would grant the American Indians exclusive control over the entire continent of North America. Yet this seems to be what you are implying. Are you suggesting that European settlers had no right to step onto the beaches of Plymouth, Massachusetts because they were trespassing on the property of the native peoples?! Let's suppose that the American Indians did have either a concept of private property that granted them "ownership" over the entire continent or they didn't recognize private property rights at all. Stipulating that this is true, I would say that they had an incorrect understanding of property rights, which we are not bound to respect. However, the crucial point that must be made is that the early European colonists indeed DID steal an enormous amount of land from the native peoples according to libertarian property rights theory and, more fundamentally, the theory of Natural Rights and the non-aggression principle. Superior ideas should win out. And I contend that the first user principle of original appropriation is the only coherent theory of private property rights that exists. None of us can undo the atrocities committed by people in the past. The best we can do is provide a consistent theoretical framework for understanding what constitutes just property and which constitutes stolen property. This of course means that some of us will be the unfair beneficiaries of past theft that cannot be proven or completely overturned. There isn't any perfect solution to this problem no matter what ideology you subscribe to. Some past land theft can be proven. Whether it is to provide reparations to descendants of black slaves or descendants of Native Americans who were murdered, libertarian justice would compel us to provide restitution for past damages if sufficient evidence is provided. It is patently unfair to criticize libertarianism for not having a perfect solution to a difficult problem when no competing ideology has any better of a solution. Is it any more "just" to take money ad hoc from white people, whether they or their ancestors had anything to do with slavery and give it to black people, whether or not their ancestors were enslaved? Furthermore, is it "just" to kick tons of European-Americans out of their homes and give them to descendants of Native Americans even if there is not the slightest evidence that the redistributed property belonged to their ancestors? The best we can hope to do is reallocate stolen goods and property to their rightful owners, to the extent that it can be proven, and sustain a coherent system of property rights based on original appropriation into the future. The further into the future we get with genuine equality of rights and property rights based on libertarian theory, the less important property theft in the distant past will matter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Can you stop with the "left-Progressives" talk. It makes you sound like a loving idiot. I have no idea who the left-Progressives are, or where the right-Progressives live, or what ideology you are discussing. How about just saying "people who advocate for social democracy." Seriously. Reading your posts is like reading a bad student paper. There's a reason why I didn't become a teacher over being a retail manager. If I had to deal with teenagers, I at least didn't want to read their work! I'm not talking about vaccines other than to say that I stand by my view that I oppose the State forcing people to take them against their will. I never said vaccines are "bad", or that people shouldn't take them. I stated something that is true, namely that there is a real danger to granting pharmaceutical companies carte blanche to produce vaccines that the State then MANDATES the public to take. The incentive structure is such that it encourages an overproduction of vaccines and pressure to give more and more vaccines at younger and younger ages, beyond the reasonable demands of public safety. Where's your skepticism of big money and distrust of corporate greed when it comes to vaccine production, Progressives? Let's not get sidetracked by that subject right now, okay? You've been involved in these debates with me for a while now, Cemetary Gator. Why do you keep conflating the libertarian policies I endorse with the sort of policies the United States is now living under? I can practically guarantee that the United States is currently farther away from the sort of policies I'd like that the sort that you'd recommend. Before I delve into that, let me back up my claims about Sweden. Everyone and their grandmother use Sweden as the sort of model social democracy that the United States ought to emulate. Bernie Sanders is doing so right now on the campaign trail. But the truth is that the wealth that Sweden has was created largely during the eighty to one hundred years before the social democratic reforms championed by progressives. There are two sources I'd like to cite to back up this point. The first is short article by Nima Sanandaji called "The Swedish Model Reassessed: Affluence Despite the Welfare State": http://www.libera.fi/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Libera_The-Swedish-model.pdf Pay careful attention to the charts and especially the list of sources at the end, which further back up the claims made. Here is something about the author: "Nima Sanandaji has a Master’s Degree from the Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, anAdvanced Master’s Degree from The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and has previously conducted research studies at both Chalmers and the University of Cambridge. He is the president of the think tank Captus. Nima has previously published six books, covering subjects such as entrepreneurship, women’s career opportunities, and innovation within the IT sector. One of these books, as well as several published reports, focuses on Swedish integration policies and entrepreneurship within immigrant groups in Sweden. Nima has also written a number of articles for Swedish newspapers, such as Aftonbladet, Expressen, and Veckans Affärer, and international publications, such as The Wall Street Journal. The second source is an article called "How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich" by Johan Norberg. I'll post just the epilogue, though please read it in its entirety from the link below: quote:Epilogue http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich#.t3jtth:XePw The point I am making is that Progressives get confused and think that the market economy is a zero sum game where the rich exploit the poor and people starve and die without access to food, healthcare and needed accessories unless or until someone comes along and constructs a social welfare State that redistributes wealth to the less fortunate members of society. What I am arguing is that the trends that Progressives attribute to State policy (reduction in poverty, access to healthcare, the rise of the middle class) are almost always already existing features of a growing free market economy. The poverty rate was dropping rapidly for decades before the United States adopted any sort of national anti-poverty programs. The rate continued to drop at the same exact speed before flatlining where it has been for several decades now. Free markets with property rights and contract law are the engine which has lifted humanity out of poverty and provided the means by which starvation has been largely eliminated in the developed world. The problems that exist in the United States today have to do with State policy that has largely undone the great prosperity and productive capacity of our once great free market economy. The growing gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with our abandonment of a sound currency and our embrace of reckless fiat monetary policy which has empowered the parasitic and unproductive rich while punishing the poor, the savers, and the productive entrepreneur who bears the brunt of the regulations heaped onto the economy. It is indeed a rigged game but don't blame this on the free market or libertarian ideology! Cato puts out a yearly report where they rank the countries of the world according to their "economic freedom", i.e. correlation of policies with libertarian ideology. This year, the United States ranks 16th. These are the top countries ranked by their adherence to policies that promote economic freedom: 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. New Zealand 4. Switzerland 5. United Arab Emirates 6. Mauritius 7. Jordan 8. Ireland 9. Canada 10. United Kingdom 11. Chile 12. Australia 13. Georgia 14. Qatar 15. Taiwan All these nations are deemed to be more economically free and thus closer to libertarianism than the United States. Interestingly, both Canada and the United Kingdom are ranked higher than the United States. But Progressives frequently cite those countries as the sort of "socialist" nations the "free market" United States ought to emulate. Let's focus our analysis on the top four most libertarian economies according to Cato. Do you suppose they have widespread starvation in Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand or Switzerland? Obviously not. If one looks at this list, it becomes clear that the more economically free nations have greater general prosperity which doesn't just accrue to the rich, but benefits everyone. Here is the full report: http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf What this should tell you is that we don't need to invalidate private property rights or embrace so-called "positive" rights (the right to healthcare, the right to a house) to create a prosperous society with a vibrant middle class and very few poor. If we embark down the path of fiat money, growing State debt and redistributive welfare, society will become much poorer in the long run. This is what the United States is teaching us, and Sweden as well. Both were vibrant and prosperous free market economies earlier in their history but later they became mired in repeating economic bubbles, increasing public debt and stagnating or declining growth. Then there is the insidious damage done by inflation which hurts the poorest while incentivising a parasitic class to mooch off the State rather than earn a living off honest, productive labor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Caros posted:Doublepost but who gives a poo poo in hellthread... No, a corporation can't homestead. A corporation is simply a contract between multiple people who came into the contract already owning certain things. The contract specifies which person owns what share of the wealth that the company produces. I think what you are implying is that it is contradictory for an employer to hire a worker to produce things for him and keep the excess profit because it is the worker who is actually "mixing his labor" with the raw materials and not the owner. But this is incorrect because the owner and the employee enter into a contract voluntarily. And the homesteading principle only applies in regards to un-owned land. If a worker works in a factory, he is mixing his labor with property which is already owned by the factory owner. Just as you can't dig up my front lawn and plant some seeds and then claim ownership over it, mixing ones labor with something which has already been homesteaded confers no property transfer or acquisition. I think I've gone over this before but I'll reiterate it because it is important. The reason that it is not exploitative for the employee to work for the employer but not reap the full return on his labor (the profits if any go to the employer) is because the employee has a high time preference and present goods are more valuable than future goods. And secondly, the employer assumes all the risk in the venture. The employer already has property which allows a worker to be much more productive than he otherwise could be on his own. Machines, forklifts, computers, whatever the case may be. The employee therefore gets to use this capital equipment which makes his labor much more valuable in exchange for a guaranteed weekly or twice monthly wage while not assuming any risk if the end product is not successful. Meanwhile the entrepreneur, the factory owner, assumes the full risk if his idea, product or service is not successful and he takes losses. Furthermore, there is a time delay before he sees any return on his investment in the form of profits. Given that it is a voluntary contract that satisfies both sides, it is not exploitative. And since the employer already owned (homesteaded or received via legitimate title transfer) the property he used, the fact that the employee mixes his labor with the property is immaterial. It is not impossible to determine who owns what in a partnership. As I said, each person who enters into a contract brings some form of legitimate property into the deal. That property was not stolen but was homesteaded or acquired through legitimate title transfer from someone who did homestead it. Then the contract would clearly specify how much of the output or profits of the joint venture each member is entitled to. Since property can be freely given away or sold, this is entirely consistent with libertarian theory and property rights. States are not like very large partnerships. Partnerships are voluntary and consensual. States, by their very definition, are coercive. If a State constituted just a bunch of people who enter into an agreement with their own property and leave everyone else alone, there is no libertarian objection to it. The problem is that States force everyone in an arbitrary geographic area to submit to its rules and live under its jurisdiction. I am forced to pay taxes to finance the effort. My property is seized whether I like it or not. Any number of people could enter into a partnership even if they abdicate their property rights in the process. Suppose ten thousand people enter into a contract to form a collective. They all enter into the contract with property they originally homesteaded. They stipulate that all this property is now part of a collective owned by all ten thousand members. If anyone decides to leave the collective in the future, they simply abandon their property. Then suppose the ten thousand decide to democratically decide how the collective property will be used. I think this would be foolish and would work poorly. But I wouldn't use force to stop them from doing it. The key point is that everyone involved is there of their free will. They are not violating anyone's property rights nor are they stopping anyone from leaving.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Honestly this is the lynch pin on which everything else he says hangs: I'm well aware of all that. I've never claimed that the United States was anything approaching a libertarian utopia at any point in its history. And there is a real reason why I separated economic freedom from social/personal freedom. We are absolutely more free in many ways than we were earlier in our history. But if you confine our analysis simply to economics, there was more freedom to start a business during the late 19th century and the money maintained its value. The American people had greater savings and less personal debt. We had a gold restrained monetary system, with the exception of the few times we abandoned the gold standard only to return to it shortly after, until 1933 and a link that remained until 1971. This sound currency restrained the growth of the State and allowed our economy to grow and our society to become the most prosperous the world had ever seen. We have to parse apart the good from the bad. American history is a mixed moral bag. Our government has committed unimaginable atrocities, but our society had from the founding been based on great ideas. Liberalism, Natural Rights, a restrained government and a free economy. We can both list dozens if not hundreds of ways that the State violated these values in its early history through the present day. But compared to other countries at the time, we had a way of beating back the State when it encroached upon our economic liberties which allowed us enough liberty to generate an unprecedented amount of prosperity. Another vitally important thing the US government was NOT doing prior to World War 1 was maintaining a world empire and stationing troops around the world. Sure, there were events where we used our military for non-defensive purposes, but in comparison to the foreign policy of the 20th century? We had a much more non-interventionist military policy in the 19th century. Racism was much worse. The genocide of the American Indians was grotesque as was the abhorrent legacy of Jim Crow and chattel slavery. I never speak about "going back" to an earlier time. I consider our founding to be a rough first draft of what a free society could be. We don't want to "go back" to the past, but move steadfast into a new future with new and better ideas. Libertarian ideas have progressed tremendously since the 19th century and we have a much better foundation for a future free society.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I just wish any libertarian would address the Actually Existing Private Property system. I talked to tons of people afterwards about their experience with robberies - exactly zero people ever got their stuff back. In rich neighborhoods, cops even dusted for fingerprints. Nada. You might be able to anticipate my response, but the problem you faced has everything to do with the fact that the police are a part of the State. They have absolutely NO incentive to retrieve your stolen stuff. If, on the other hand you could hire competing security forces to secure your neighborhood and catch and punish thieves then you would be far more likely to see much better protection of your property rights. After all, a private business that depends on your voluntary payments rather than coercive taxation has every incentive to provide you with a good service. If they don't, you can fire them and hire a different security company.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But I think by telling Jrod what he's doing wrong, I can improve the writing of other people. They can use JRod as an example of what not to do. The writing tips seem like an evasion. You can avoid the issue we are discussing and be condescending at the same time! It's a win-win. I did want to mention that I don't copy and paste at all. Unless I clearly attribute something and put it in quotes, which I don't do often. I don't want people to think that because I write a lot of words, I am copying them from somewhere else. That is not the case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:i thought laissez-faire was the natural state of man jrode. Why would Africans need us to "teach them" about it? Shouldn't it just come naturally? Where did I say that? If laissez-faire just came naturally, the world would be made up of libertarian countries. No, people have to have some economic literacy. People aren't born knowing everything. You'd have to read Bastiat's "The Law" or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" or something similar to be able to think like an economist. Remember, the primary difference between a good economist and a bad economist is that the good economist takes note of the "unseen" as well as the seen. This is not natural. It requires an understanding of economics and opportunity costs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey jrod I have an urgent question, sorry for typos: phoneposting under some emotional stress. Have you heard the expression "hard cases make bad laws?" There are libertarians who have spoken about such extreme situations, but I want to speak about "lifeboat scenarios" in general because they are practically worthless regarding the validity of ethics or law that must be based on normal situations, not extreme and unusual circumstances that most of us are unlikely to ever encounter. Nearly every system of ethics breaks down in the most extreme of situations. I think Murray Rothbard wrote a good article about the problem with lifeboat situations and I'll cite a passage: quote:It is often contended that the existence of extreme, or "lifeboat," situations disproves any theory of absolute property rights, or indeed of any absolute rights of self-ownership whatsoever. It is claimed that since any theory of individual rights seems to break down or works unsatisfactorily in such fortunately rare situations, therefore there can be no concept of inviolable rights at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:"look i don't think he's racist, and i'm gonna say that, but i don't want to hear you say anything to the contrary" - a coward gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore. You are the coward. You wouldn't dare speak to me that way in person but, surrounded by 25 of your like-minded internet buddies and made anonymous by your IP address you act like a tough guy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:1) What do you think that the Soviet Union was trying to do by spreading communism? Jesus Christ. I actually figured that most of you would say "well, of course world government would be bad" and make up some excuse as to why your ideology doesn't logically lead to that place. But instead you embrace it as a good and desirable thing. If you look at how poor people in third world and undeveloped nations are, and how many people there are on the planet compared to the populations of the United States, Canada and Europe, how on earth would you NOT expect a substantial drop in prosperity for those of us who live in those countries? Do you have any idea how much money would have to be redistributed to Africa and India to make people materially equal? I wish the absolute best for everyone, but how responsive do you think a world government would be to the people they supposedly represent?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:Not to belabor but it isn't just we who think Hoppe is a racist. In the libertarian thread you yourself showed that you were leaning that was when it was pointed out to you that he hosts an annual conference for Race Realists. Just making sure everyone is aware. I promise I am NOT getting into a debate about Hoppe but I will only correct one thing you said. Hoppe doesn't host a conference for "race realists". He runs his own organization called "The Property and Freedom Society" which hosts lots of different speakers, even controversial ones. The vast majority of speakers are run of the mill libertarians, usually right-libertarians and sometimes paleo-conservatives. A couple times that I am aware the infamous Jared Taylor spoke at his conference. That is all there is. This is a far cry from hosting a conference FOR "race realists'. Hoppe is the direct descendant of Rothbard's late "paleo-libertarian" phase. Paleo-libertarianism tried to create an alliance between libertarians and conservatives and in that (in my view) misguided effort, some unsavory elements were brought into the libertarian tradition. Rothbard was so alienated from the Koch-funded "mainstream" of the libertarian movement and disillusioned from the break-up of the New Left that he had aligned himself with in the late 1960s and early 1970s that he had little choice but to form an alliance with the right. That is what the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters amounted to. They were crude fundraising letters reaching out to "the rednecks" by trying to capitalize on racial resentment sentiment that reached a fever pitch in the early 1990s, around the time of the LA Riots and the Rodney King incident. There is no evidence that any libertarian actually believed any of that rhetoric but it was seen as somehow legitimate to use it to form an alliance with even the unsavory elements, whatever was necessary to abolish the State. Luckily this "paleo" strategy was soon abandoned and libertarianism became more unified by the mid 1990s. Hoppe, however, continues to claim that libertarians ought to be natural allies of conservatives. I couldn't disagree more. Yet, I appreciate his Austrian economic literacy and his views on plenty of subjects. So I will take what I see of value from Hoppe just as I take what I value from left-libertarians like Gary Chartier, Sheldon Richman and Roderick Long.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Thank you for entering into a contract with me, Jrod. We know the locations of certain southern plantations where Africans were enslaved and forced to work. Many of them still stand today. Libertarian justice would have granted the freed slaves a plot of land on the plantation they were forced to work once they were emancipated. The plantation owner would have to forfeit his property. Since this obviously DIDN'T happen, genealogical evidence can be used to determine whose descendants are still alive and, when they are located, a plot of land should be granted to them in my view. Or a cash settlement can be reached with the current occupant of the land. It may be harder to determine property rights claims for Native Americans but certainly treaties broken by the US government would be taken into account. Land that certain tribes were promised but were reneged on should certainly be regarded as stolen land to be given to descendants of the Native Americans who lived there. I know how many of you like to call me a racist, but I don't know many racists who would take a view like this. Justice should be served and there can be no statute of limitations on justice.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Bryter posted:HMMMMMM So I speak about economic policy in the 19th century and you post a chart that starts in 1916. What is this supposed to prove? If anything, it only bolsters my case because of the massive increase in private debt in recent decades, following the break down of Breton Woods in 1971.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:You're in no position to call anyone a coward, you selfish manchild. Every time someone brings a substantive argument to you you do the following: Oh I see. Ever getting help from anyone somehow makes me a hypocritical libertarian? For the record, I only ever borrowed $1000 from my grandparents which I promptly paid back, but way to bring up a red herring. Let's get this straight though. I am not obligated to answer every single post on YOUR schedule. I've wasted far more time than I should on these forums. It's like you are unaware that unlike apparently some of you, I actually have a day job, family obligations and other hobbies. If I don't post here every loving week or every month, it doesn't make me a "coward" who had to concede defeat. I don't care what the gently caress you do. Just don't aim those loving guns in my direction. You don't really care about the State violence committed on your behalf. If there is a social problem you are concerned about, go fix it! Work in the market, create something, innovate. Don't use the political process to terrorize your fellow man into complying with your social designs. This is what sociopaths do. Civilized people interact with others on a voluntary basis. There is a reason I am trying to be really clear about what rights people have and what constitutes just property titles. If there is clarity on these fronts, it means you can't weasel your way out of it when it is inconvenient for you. You all want to make things very vague, so you can justify State coercion without constraint. For a principled person, there is a threshold that must be met if the State is to seize property. The property must be proven to be invalid for some clearly defined reason. It shouldn't be a vague justification or a democratic whim of the majority.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Let's talk about something else for a bit. There is a reason why I keep coming back here and posting. Most political internet forums are populated by people who don't know anything. They frankly aren't any fun to participate in. But on the other hand, this is not a way to have a debate. I'd be happy to debate just one of you or a small number of those who are serious, but taking on thirty at once is unwieldy at best. I'd like to take a break from this for a moment and just ask an open ended question. What are you guys into besides politics and posting on the internet? Do any of you have degrees? What are your hobbies? Speaking for myself, I'm a young guy who likes exercising, playing basketball, listening to music, watching movies, going to parties, and being creative. I run a couple part-time internet businesses, and my dream in the future is to grow them into being able to sustain a full income so I can quit my day job. Contrary to what many of you have insinuated, I was not born of privilege. My parents were working class. I was raised in a 1200 square foot 1960s-era house in a not particularly great neighborhood. Luckily my parents valued my education, so I was fortunate enough to attend a private school for most of my formal education. My parents went into debt to send me there and I was on a scholarship that helped pay for my education. What about y'all? What are your hobbies outside of ridiculing libertarians on internet forums? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Caros posted:Hey you're back! And when I'm awake! Nope, never hosed a watermelon. Have you? All right, I'll mellow out and check out some of the rest of the forum. By the way, who do you write for? I play some video games myself, not as much as I used to. I think I recall from a previous post, you mentioned you play some World of Warcraft? Am I remembering that correctly? I could never get into those sorts of games personally, but I'll play an RPG or two once in a while.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
I have some time to post again since my life has gotten less hectic. I recall the invitation that Caros made to do a formal debate with me. That is appealing to me on several levels. My only hesitation has nothing to do with me not being convinced of the correctness of my position or in my ability to articulate and defend my views. Rather, my hesitation has more to do with putting myself on the internet on a video. I don't own a webcam and if, or when, I make the decision to promote myself through video I want to be sure I am comfortable with that decision and that the comments I make are fit to be preserved for eternity on the web. That is just a line I have not yet crossed. I've been told I am very good looking by more than a few women so no problems there. Nor am I afraid of public speaking. I simply have a certain level of propriety and desire for privacy and that is why I'd prefer not to do any sort of video chat/debate at this time. However, I would be absolutely happy to do a written debate with one, or a small handful, of the serious members of this forum. Caros and Cemetary Gator come to mind, since they are two of the most substantive posters on this site. These threads get unwieldy quickly and even when I intend to only respond to specific posters, I get distracted my inane or inflammatory substance-free replies and feel like responded to everyone. I don't know if or how this could be set up, but I would gladly debate Caros or Cemetary Gator (or another member) in a written debate while the other members watched and commented on another thread perhaps. That way we could go point by point and a discussion could proceed in a focused manner. This is just an idea I am throwing out there. I engage in these sorts of discussions because I am very passionate about these ideas and I think that the act of debate is a great exercise in subjected ideas to scrutiny. And, for the record, I am not as arrogant or condescending as I sometimes come across. I don't know the answers to every objection that is raised. I feel I have read enough in depth to anticipate most objections to the free society and how to respond but there are occasions where I am confronted with an objection that I am unprepared for. I absolutely welcome such a thing because it provides an opportunity for me to learn something new. I hope you all do the same when I construct a libertarian argument you are not familiar with. I know everyone acts tough when they get to hide behind an anonymous IP address. We forget that behind the username is a real human being with complexities and, hopefully, an earnest interest in uncovering truth and empathy for their fellow man which informs their good-faith beliefs on what constitutes a just society. Also, I know this is a comedy forum but as it relates to my threads, I'd really like to limit the amount of substance-less posts that consist of riffs or attempts at cheap-shot humor. I'm really interested in comparing and contrasting political beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
While I wait for a response to my previous post, I'd like to again return to the subject of this thread. Frankly I'm not prepared to spend my time reading through all 35 pages of replies to take a tally of how many of you responded with substance about what constitutes just private property rights in your view, but from what I have read, I'd wager the number is small indeed. To state the obvious, it is not only libertarians who value private property rights. All political ideologies have a strong conviction on private property. Marxists have a deeply felt conviction that the product of the worker's labor is their property and therefore the Capitalist is a thief by pocketing a profit from the product manufactured by the worker. That is why they feel it is justified for the workers to rise up and take control of the factories, taking them away from the Capitalist. It is not a random whim that is used to justify re-appropriation of property from the perceived thief to the "rightful" owner, but a consistent if mistaken concept of just property rights. Several posters on this very site accused me and fellow libertarians of committing "theft" if we were a tax protester to refused to pay taxes to the State. Therefore the principle is that the State, or "society", has a property right in the fruits of my labor. That is your property rights belief. Yet when pressed for elaboration, Caros in particular retreated into abstraction. "We're just a bunch of hairless apes who do whatever 'works'. There are no property rights but only utilitarian in-the-moment value-judgments on whose control of scarce resources are to be respected and whose are not." This is obviously a paraphrase but it comes pretty close to the argument offered. Yet if one is concerned at all with justice, as so many progressives claim to be, then a very clear ethical standard which informs us who has rightful control of what scarce resource must be clearly established. You may not agree with the libertarian standard, but an equally clear definition of just property must be offered in its place. As I previously stated, libertarians believe that the original way that just property is acquired is through original appropriation i.e homesteading. I was challenged with a good question, which I will try to answer here. "Since all land in 2015, or at least all desirable land where humans congregate is owned by somebody, or at least some property right is asserted, why does it matter how property was originally acquired? We don't live on the frontier where original appropriation of unowned natural resources is possible for almost anyone, so of what practical use is this abstract concept?" This is a good question. The answer is that to formulate a coherent logical theory of private property, one must establish how property originally came into existence. Originally, the appropriator of a natural resource (the first user) who transforms the resource through his or her labor has established a greater claim to its use than anyone else. Now, if another person takes that resource without the permission of the first user, he is a thief. And justice would demand that the stolen item be returned to the first user and then be compensated for his troubles. Then the first user has the right to exclusive control over that scarce resource until he voluntarily gives it away, contractually exchanges it or abandons it for a second user to claim the right to exclusive control over it. Through this theory, we can clear up the historical record about which currently existing property titles are justified and which are not. And there can or should be no statute of limitations on justice. If past theft can be proven, even hundreds of years in the past, and a descendant of a previous victim of the theft can be identified then the stolen property ought to be returned to the living descendant. This has profound implications for the descendants of black slaves and Native Americans as I have already stated. Reparations are owned to victims of past theft, but proof must be offered that the person to receive the redistributed property has a better claim to it than the current owner. According to libertarian property theory, a prior owner has a better claim than a later owner unless the prior owner voluntarily parted with the property through gift or contractual exchange. It doesn't matter if the current user of the property is not aware that they are in possession of stolen property, the rightful owner is the victim of the theft or the direct descendant. Now, imagine a case where the descendant of a black slave can prove that a plot of land in Louisiana is rightfully his since his ancestor was forced to toil on a plantation, and thus homesteaded that land. Justice, as Murray Rothbard has said, would have compelled the plantation owner to part with all his property and grant it to the freed slaves after emancipation. Since this didn't happen, the descendants of those slaves have a claim to a portion of that same property. If they can provide proof that their ancestor worked on a specific plantation, then they are owed a portion of land consistent with the labor their enslaved ancestors were forced to work on the land specified. But suppose that the black ancestor is now a rich actor and doesn't really need the land. And suppose that the current residents of the land are poor whites. Should this matter? Is the ancestor of the enslaved African man or woman less entitled to the property because of their current income vis a vis the holder of the property? Not in the least. The property is still more justly the black actor's than it is the poor white family who currently resides there. However, the black actor is absolutely at liberty to waive his rights to that property on account of his current fortune and the condition of the well-meaning people who unknowingly are in possession of stolen property. Or a deal could be worked out with the current occupants such that they pay a direct payment in reparations equal or less than the value of the land in question determined by negotiation between the two parties. Now complicated problems like this and past grave injustices can only be remedied with reference to a sound theory over what constitutes just property rights. Some modern advocates of reparations for slavery would have it that the State tax all white inhabitants and distribute that money to all black inhabitants. But this would clearly be unjust. Many whites never had ancestors who had a thing to do with slavery and many blacks never had ancestors who were enslaved. Such a reckless politically-motivated redistribution would exacerbate injustice by depriving some people of just property and redistributing it to undeserving recipients. Suppose a black person had ancestors who were African tribesmen who sold their fellow blacks into slavery, as unfortunately happened frequently during the time of the slave trade. Surely they would not deserve reparations since their ancestors, although black, actually profited from the slave trade. If anything, they owe other blacks reparations. There must be a coherent and consistent theory of who has just claim over what scarce resource in order to sort out these complicated matters. That is why the theory of original appropriation is so important. So I'd like to ask again what is your theory of property rights? By what standard do you decide that a person or group of persons has rightful discretion and decision-making authority over a scarce resource? jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Nov 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What about men? Okay, I'll bite. Growing up, people thought I looked like Prince William, but that was way off. Maybe when he was younger. I've definitely got much better (and more) hair than he does. This is the closest I could find: http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BODA5ODYwMDc4Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODM1MDA0NQ@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg Not exact but the hair is pretty close. I've also got blue eyes not brown. I'm probably a bit taller than he is. I'm 6'2". Here's another one. I'm not in shape like that and I'm a little older (5-8 years older I'd guess) but it's pretty close nevertheless: http://www.mancrushes.com/sites/default/files/Alexander-Ludwig-sexy-2.jpg Anyway, fun little diversion but let's get back on topic if you don't mind.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Stop there please, as your free society is not based on any notion of egalitarian philosophy nor economic empowerment for those whom are oppressed. Don't use buzzwords like freedom and liberty, especially when you distort their definitions to mean absolutely nothing. You are a moron, and if you haven't noticed these 'ideas' you're passionate about are pretty much Voodoo economics for why we should give white dudes slaves. "Voodoo economics for why we should give white dudes slaves". I don't know if that is an attempt at humor or if you are using the term "slaves" in an incredibly imprecise way or if you are referring to actual chattel slavery. If it's the later and you are being serious you're a lost cause. The very principle of libertarian philosophy is self (i.e. body) ownership and the non-aggression principle which absolutely precludes any form of slavery. Anyone who has spent two seconds reading about libertarianism or classical liberal philosophy would know that. Either you are dishonest or you literally know not a single thing about what I believe. For me to respond in any more details, you have to define your terms. I never claimed to be an egalitarian. Are you a supporter of egalitarian outcomes, i.e. people ought to be materially equal? You have to also define what you mean by economic empowerment. I feel like libertarian law provides the greatest amount of economic empowerment for everyone, including the most disadvantaged. And what do you mean by "oppressed"? Who admits to being in favor of oppression? This is one of those buzzwords that must be carefully defined. I actually have defined what I mean by liberty pretty exhaustively. Liberty is the ability to pursue your passions and cooperate with your fellow man in any way you see fit, provided you refrain from using aggression against anyone or their justly acquired property. That is, there are no unwanted boundary-crossings of scarce resources legitimately controlled by an original appropriator or a subsequent owner who acquired the property through legitimate contractual exchange from an original appropriator. That is, there is no prior restraint, no restrictions on consensual and voluntary behavior. This is what liberty is. What you mean by "egalitarian", "economic empowerment", "disadvantaged", etc are not at all clear. If you elaborate, I can follow up. Finally, a tiring aspect of debating with leftists is the unfounded assumption that defenders of the market economy or opponents of the State are not merely mistaken, but are fundamentally immoral people. Your assumption that I lack any empathy is entirely illustrative of that. I assume that most of you are generally good people who care about others but are merely mistaken and choose the wrong means to achieve the desired ends. The goal for the libertarian is a prosperous society where the poor are taken care of, humans can achieve their fullest potential, conflict is minimized, injustice is limited to the greatest possible extent, and peaceful productivity and cooperation replace politics and conflict. We may be wrong about this, but don't baselessly assert that we lack empathy, or have bad intent. The goals we seek are similar in the sense that we want to best outcomes for our neighbor, for the disadvantaged, and for society in general. We have different ideas about how to best achieve such outcomes. Now, if you are sincere in your desire for the best outcomes, then you would be open to changing your beliefs if it were to be demonstrated to you that, say, free market libertarianism lifted far more people out of poverty and created general prosperity far better than socialism and central-planning, correct? There are plenty of people so wedded to the means that they don't budge in the face of evidence that the ends they desire are better achieved though alternate means. I hope you are more open-minded than that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Holy poo poo! You're back! Halle-loving-lujah! I've missed you, sweetie! What a day! What a lovely day! Glad to be back (I think?). It's funny what you guys grasp onto and hammer away at me about. By citing in passing the Cato study on economic freedom in different nations throughout the world, you choose to pick out a couple entries on the the list and cite the various ways in which those nations are NOT free and demand that I answer for their failings and further assert that somehow I am claiming that the United States ought to emulate the policies of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. You can easily read about how and why Cato made this list and what metrics were used to judge the different nations. What is clear is that this is a list of economically free countries. Personal liberties were not considered in this particular study. Of course libertarians care about personal and social liberty just as much, if not more, than we care about economic liberty, but this particular study limited it's scope to economic liberty, i.e. how easy it is to start a business, respect for private property rights and effective and efficient legal systems for arbitrating disputes. These are vitally important factors in the development of societal wealth. At the same time, some of these countries have very draconian anti-gay laws, laws against drugs and prostitution and other infringements on civil liberties. None of these countries are libertarian, or are cited as such. What I intended by citing this study was to demonstrate the value that the liberalization of markets has had in the development of wealth in various countries of the world. If you look at the entire list, you see a trend. The countries at the top of the list are wealthier and have a higher average living standard than those lower on the list. The reason for this is primarily greater economic freedom. I absolutely concede that if you are gay, or are a racial minority, or are a drug user or adherent to any sort of alternative lifestyle you would have more social freedom in the United States than you would in many of these countries. But that is not what this study is meant to demonstrate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:And yet you use sources to bolster your argument that hold up Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, places where chattel slavery is accepted, as somehow more 'economically free'. So if there's confusion here, it's all because of you, buttercup. Okay, let's suppose you are a Marxist. I give you a list of the following countries: United States, Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, Mauritius, . Now list these countries in order of their adherence to Marxist principles. Obviously none of these nations are Marxist at all, but rather are capitalist or quasi-capitalist. Nevertheless, you do your best and rank them in accordance to your values. Then, let's suppose that I pick out number eight and number ten on your ranking of most Marxist non-Marxist countries and chastise you about their various betrayals of Marxist values. Do you suppose that would be fair or reasonable? Going into the exercise we knew that none of these countries were Marxist just as we know that none of these countries ranked by Cato or Heritage are exactly libertarian. Nevertheless, based on various metrics, they ranked the non-libertarian countries of the world according to their degree of economic liberty. These are the metrics used to judge the various countries: 1. Size of Government A. Government consumption B. Transfers and subsidies C. Government enterprises and investment D. Top marginal tax rate (i) Top marginal income tax rate (ii) Top marginal income and payroll tax rate 2. Legal System and Property Rights A. Judicial independence B. Impartial courts C. Protection of property rights D. Military interference in rule of law and politics E. Integrity of the legal system F. Legal enforcement of contracts G. Regulatory costs of the sale of real property H. Reliability of police I. Business costs of crime 3. Sound Money A. Money growth B. Standard deviation of inflation C. Inflation: most recent year D. Freedom to own foreign currency bank accounts 4. Freedom to Trade Internationally A. Tariffs (i) Revenue from trade taxes (% of trade sector) (ii) Mean tariff rate (iii) Standard deviation of tariff rates B. Regulatory trade barriers (i) Non-tariff trade barriers (ii) Compliance costs of importing and exporting C. Black-market exchange rates D. Controls of the movement of capital and people (i) Foreign ownership / investment restrictions (ii) Capital controls (iii) Freedom of foreigners to visit 5. Regulation A. Credit market regulations (i) Ownership of banks (ii) Private sector credit (iii) Interest rate controls / negative real interest rates B. Labor market regulations (i) Hiring regulations and minimum wage (ii) Hiring and firing regulations (iii) Centralized collective bargaining (iv) Hours regulations (v) Mandated cost of worker dismissal (vi) Conscription C. Business regulations (i) Administrative requirements (ii) Bureaucracy costs (iii) Starting a business (iv) Extra payments / bribes / favoritism (v) Licensing restrictions (vi) Cost of tax compliance You can read more about how this list was compiled below: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf You know what metrics are not listed? Personal liberty. Penalties for possessing pornography or drugs. Penalties for engaging in homosexual acts. There are all manner of personal liberties and values dear to libertarians that were merely not part of the scope of this particular study. When Cato or another libertarian outfit publishes their annual report on personal and social liberty, then you could see how the various non-libertarian countries stack up on the other side of the liberty coin. I personally don't know a thing about the United Arab Emirates. Maybe the methodology was flawed and even when restricting the parameters to simply economic freedom, the United Arab Emirates don't deserve to be anywhere near the top 10. I can't tell you that. But if you think that ANY libertarian anywhere supports slavery in any form, you are either a fool or a malevolent and dishonest person who prefers character assassination to thoughtful critiques.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait wait no, you can't get out of this by claiming social freedom is a different metric. Are you really telling us that whether you can be owned by a construction company and held to forced labor has nothing to do with economic freedom? I don't know how I could be any more loving clear. Libertarians absolutely, positively and without any reservations oppose all forms of coercive associations of which slavery is the most egregious. The loving end. There are plenty of human rights abuses that go on in the United Arab Emirates, I grant you. You'll get no argument from me there. But do you not see how picking out ONE of the top 15 countries as listed by Cato for economic freedom is rather disingenuous? Why not spend a few minutes speaking about Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Mauritius, Jordan, Ireland, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Georgia or Taiwan? Are these nations not, generally speaking, more economically free than many other nations? Do you suspect that the general economic liberalism of these countries in comparison to other, more economically Statist nations might prove a larger point about the efficacy of laissez-faire in promoting the generation of societal wealth? There is a reason why North Korea is in abysmal poverty in comparison to South Korea. None of these nations are libertarian. Yet lessons can be drawn nonetheless in comparing the relative lack of State interference in economic transactions in some nations versus the heavy regulation and legal restrictions in others. That is the ONLY point I was trying to make in citing this study. Try to see the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Jrod, just admit you made a mistake, stop doubling down. I can't speak for the other posters, but I'll respect you more. What mistake? I've already made it quite plain and clear that I don't answer for other people. I'll clearly state MY position and defend that, using sources to illustrate points at certain times. This is just a ludicrous thing for you all to harp on. I cited the Cato study to illustrate a broader point about the economic liberalism being a benefit to wealth creation and average living standards. The study listed EVERY country, nearly two hundred of them. Was the United Arab Emirates listed too high? Maybe. I honestly don't have the specific knowledge of that country or its policies to tell you. But calling out the human rights abuses in the United Arab Emirates and demanding that I answer for that is the most ludicrous and petty rebuttals you could offer. There is a larger trend that I was trying to get across that you seemed to have missed. In the interest of moving on and discussing something more substantive, I'll say that I denounce the United Arab Emirates (and Qatar for that matter) for their human rights abuses and they are not the least bit libertarian. Satisfied? Now, let's talk about something substantive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:I love how you still try to dodge this thing as best you can. Allow me to quote something to you: You are the one who is confused here. Yes, to a libertarian, property rights ARE human rights. For example, the principle ownership of ones body logically means that violent acts like slavery and rape are immoral because they constitute unwanted and uninvited invasions against ones physical body. Furthermore, rights such as the right to speech don't exist outside of property rights. For example, you are not permitted to come into my living room and say whatever you wish. If you enter my home, you are obligated to abide by my rules or you will have to leave. That means that I can state that you are NOT permitted to say certain things while on my property. You cannot, for example, swear at my family and be rude and obnoxious. You don't have an unlimited freedom of speech anywhere you go. On your own property, you may say anything you wish however. At any venue where you are invited and permitted to speak freely, you can disseminate any information or personal views without any problem. But you must either own the property or get permission from the owner of the property that the speech you make is permissible. That is what is meant by the statement that human rights equal property rights. However, in politics, liberty is frequently separated into two parts. People speak about economic liberties and personal liberties. To the libertarian, both are sacrosanct and ought to be respected with equal reverence. To a degree, it makes sense why people look at these activities differently. We are not only economic actors after all. We have private and personal lives. Therefore it is not the libertarian who makes a sharp distinction between economic and personal liberty but most of society. After all, it is the progressive who holds up social liberty as the thing that ought to be defended. Gay marriage, free speech, drug use, alternative lifestyles, prostitution, pornography, etc ought to be defended yet economic activity, campaign contributions, political speech, advertisements, free trade, contracts, wage rates for workers, etc ought to be heavily regulated and restricted by State law. For the conservative, precisely the opposite is true. Economic freedom is to be respected, yet personal freedom is to be infringed upon. Gay marriage should be outlawed, abortion restricted or made illegal, pornography limited or banned, drugs made illegal, prostitution made illegal, etc. How is it a contradiction that a specific study by a libertarian group, Cato, ranks the various countries by their adherence to economic liberty but not personal liberty? Each study has parameters and a defined scope. That hardly means that something outside the scope of this particular study is somehow not important to libertarians as a group. Seriously, in the interest of a more productive discussion, let's drop the Cato study for now and discuss libertarian theory as I defend it, okay?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Drop the personal liberty vs economic liberty angle, we're only talking about economic liberty (unless you'd like to argue that slavery isn't a question of economic liberty?) What you are doing is spreading a gross caricature of libertarianism that says more about your own prejudices than it does about actual libertarian thought. Libertarians care more about low taxes than slavery? Really? I guess we can forget about all the classical liberal abolitionist writings and the statements that repeatedly say that slavery is the most egregious violation of human liberty. This sounds like something progressives make up about libertarians while snuggled in their own tight-knit bubble of self-reinforcing ideologies. The sort of thing people who have never even spoken to a libertarian, let alone having read a single influential libertarian treatise, would make up. You HAVE been speaking to a libertarian and I can assume you've read a few things about libertarianism so you don't have the excuse of ignorance to fall back on. It is grossly irresponsible to make a statement like "despite the lip service Libertarianism gives to personal liberty and economic freedom, when you look at what they actually value, low taxes are much more important than slavery." What are you basing this on? You already acknowledge that all libertarians say they strongly oppose slavery since it is a violation of the non-aggression principle and self ownership. Every decent person opposes slavery, it hardly need be said. The reason why some libertarians focus on economics is that most people are not very economically literate and much more work needs to be done to educate the masses about the value of economic liberty. Now, regarding the Cato study. I've already written down the criteria they used in the rankings of economic liberty. If you want to learn more, here is the full PDF file of the report that goes into much greater detail: http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf If there was a methodological error in the way the list was compiled, then you are more than willing to point it out. You ought to direct your critique to the authors at Cato. But at least you should be clear about the method used and scope of the study in question. None of these countries adhere to libertarianism all that closely. In ranking a list of non-libertarian countries, we can only cite countries that have specific policies that are libertarian and look at the effect of those policies in particular. Switzerland, for example, has a very libertarian foreign policy of neutrality, non-intervention and the lack of a standing army and military industrial complex. The Netherlands have fairly libertarian and tolerant drug and prostitution policies. And various nations like New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore have economic policies that are much closer to laissez-faire than most other nations. Conclusions can be drawn from singling out particular policies that are closer to libertarianism and looking at their effects. The fact that other policies in all these nations deviate from libertarianism doesn't impugn the character of the libertarian analyst who is trying to make sense of an un-free world. Just as the Marxist who ranked the worlds countries in accordance with their adherence to Marxists principles could hardly be brought to task for the various betrayals of Marxism that different nations had given that no currently existing nations align very well with those values. For the record, the Cato Institute is far from my favorite libertarian think tank. Citing this study doesn't amount to a ringing endorsement of Cato or all of the writers there. But I think this list is pretty accurate judged on the whole. Look at the top 20 countries listed and compare them to the bottom 20 and you'd be hard pressed to argue that the top 20 are not much more economically free and prosperous than the bottom 20. Other libertarian organizations have released similar lists that rank different nations according to different libertarian criteria. I'm trying to get off of this subject and speak about the libertarian principles I articulate. Fair enough? This is absolutely NOT worth the time you are investing in it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I think the issue is that you mostly don't want to engage in a written debate and you don't defend your points. There are people who make honest efforts to reply to your posts and if you wanted you could be having a written debate because that's basically what a forum discussion is. You're right. That is one reason why I would like to find some way to have a written debate with a few of you so the clutter and unwieldyness of these posts don't make communication difficult or impossible. I also don't have the time I'd like to spend debating these issues so when normal life intrudes, you think I am ducking out and avoiding tough questions. I'd much rather stick to a single issue at a time, hash that out for a reasonable length of time and then move on to another issue. Another problem is that everyone wants to have the last word and whoever gets the last word thinks that they "won" because the other person didn't respond. At a certain point, I will have said what I have to say on a topic and you all will have said what you have to say and we just have to leave it at that for the moment. I'll try to ignore substance-less posts and respond to more substantive posts moving forward.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Many of them do, sure. "Property", as I am using it, refers only to rules which determine who has the right to control what scarce resource. The "rules" of Marxism thus are a type of property right. I'd strongly argue that they are incorrect and incoherent, but they are a system of property rights nonetheless. The surplus property of the more well off is more justly the property of the less well off according to the theory. We are really arguing over definitions. You are disputing my characterization of Marxism as having a theory of property rights, but we are speaking about the same thing regardless. EvanSchenck posted:Notice that we suddenly went from "private property rights" to " I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If I feel that coercive taxation is immoral and I peacefully choose to not pay the extortion fee to the State, violence will be used against me. I will be thrown into a cage for a long time. This is okay with all of you because you have a concept of property rights which is that agents of the State own the product of my labor and permit me to keep whatever portion of my income that they legislate. It is not at all "unambiguous" that public goods such as roads and streetlights are owned by "society". Who is "society"? Do you own a portion of the road and streetlight in front of my house? You don't benefit from it. Your taxes didn't go to fund it either. More reasonably, it could be said that the property right of the road and streetlights in my neighborhood can and should be considered jointly "owned" by the people who live in that neighborhood but not anyone else. And I would argue that such ownership should be set up through contract on the free market without any coercive taxation or State involvement whatsoever. A neighborhood association can form voluntarily and people who move in to a neighborhood can be asked to sign a contract which obligates them to pay a small fee to maintain the roads, streetlights and basic services. This is not a State, since all contracts are voluntary. EvanSchenck posted:He retreated to abstraction because this point is actually banal to the point of being meaningless. As you say, equitable distribution of scarce resources is a universal problem, which will be addressed by any ideology or philosophy that proposes a system for living in the world. Where everyone disagrees with you, Jrod, is in your support for arguably the worst, least efficient, and most inequitable such system. Libertarian is incredibly bad at protecting and distributing scarce resources, it has no mechanism for either besides the hope that things will work out just because ... You can't simply assert that. You have to defend these assertions. In what ways are private property rights based on original appropriation the "worst", least efficient and most inequitable? In the first place, there is no "distribution" of scarce resources. That is an incorrect, imprecise term. People ought to own what they pluck out of nature and transform with their labor and they are free to exchange what they homestead with the property homesteaded from others. This system provides the most clear rules for who has the right to determine the use of what scarce resource. All competing systems are subject to imprecision, arbitrariness, political whim, democratic deliberation which causes inefficiency in the use of scarce resources and many other problems besides. The problem of how to defend those property rights and arbitrate disputes is not different from any competing system. You have a police force, either voluntarily funded or provided by a minimal State, and a court system. There is no unique problem in enforcing the libertarian concept of private property rights. In fact, the laws are made all the more clear and policing of crime would be much more efficient since the property rights violator would be much more clearly identified given the clarity of libertarian law. So your point that it would be "inefficient" does not stand up to scrutiny. EvanSchenck posted:Homesteading is a nonsense argument and it is obviously not the original way that property is acquired, because the idea of exclusive private property in the sense that libertarians use is pretty clearly only a few hundred years old. It was invented at a point in history when economic conditions made it desirable to social elites. That is, when European colonists in North America desired land held by Native Americans, they invented the idea of homesteading while at the same time pretending that the Native Americans did not qualify. Partly they did this by pretending that the Native Americans were not practicing agriculture, which was ridiculous. Another practice was defining other activities or relationships to the land practiced by the Native Americans as not counting for the purposes of determining property. e.g. Native Americans set aside and maintained game preserves for hunting, which doesn't count because it's not agriculture; e.g. Native Americans held farmland communally, which doesn't count because it's not private property. The only way that homesteading was NOT the original way that property was acquired is if you assume that there was never an original user of scare resources, which is of course ludicrous. Of course the academic concept of homesteading was not understood but original appropriation obviously DID occur. In early human civilization as hunter gatherers living at a subsistence level, humans had no real concept of private property nor was one needed since people never produced enough to have any goods long enough to need protection. However, when primitive civilizations began to form, a division of labor became necessary for humans to produce more. This allowed for capital to begin to form, a surplus in excess of the consumptive needs to those people. Thus property rights were needed. Primitive tribes would usually look to a respected elder to adjudicate disputes that arose. These were the first "courts" and early law came into existence simply by discovering the norms that were needed for human development and flourishing. For example, surplus capital needed to be protected in some way from theft or else the incentive to produce it would be gone and the entire tribe would suffer. Early money came into existence when barter became impractical and a medium of exchange was needed to facilitate a growing economy. Notice that nothing like a "State" came into existence until later in human society. The primitive tribe was not at all akin to a primitive State since the rule-setters and arbitrators were usually voluntarily agreed upon by the others. On the other hand, there were indeed violent people who rose to prominence simply due to their superior physical strength and others were simply afraid or them. But such early tribes had trouble making any sort of development because they were engaged in violence which precluded the peaceful production and division of labor, not to mention the establishment of fair laws or norms. Thus a general preference for voluntarism was required for the primitive hunter gatherer tribe to develop. States, by definition, require a productive economy to fund itself off of. Coercive taxation is a feature of a State which cannot exist without a previously existing market economy and division of labor, no matter how primitive. In short, I think you are wrong. Even without the academic concept of homesteading, early rules or norms gave preference to the first user of a scarce resource as the better person to determine its use. EvanSchenck posted:
First of all, I love Adventure Time. It is one of my guilty pleasures, though I'm not sure why I should feel guilty about watching and liking it. Yes, there are other principles of property such as the ones you outlined. But you are completely wrong if you think that the powerful in society ever seriously adopted and promoted the libertarian theory of private property. And no one has an "unlimited" right to private property. They have a right to determine the use of their scarce resources only until their actions cause an invasion of the borders of someone else's private property, which includes their physical bodies. Pollution is one such thing that would be heavily regulated under libertarian law since it would almost certainly cause an unwanted invasion of others property boundaries. So it is not unlimited, but heavily regulated. It is the peaceful use of ones property, activities that do NOT cause harm to others, that people ought to be free to do without any prior restraint.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Jrode, I want to diverge from libertarianism, racism and slavery or whatever for a moment and talk about the philosophy of philosophy. In the abstract, I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. I've made mistakes in all the time I've posted here. That is probably inevitable when posting as much as I do and I shouldn't be afraid to admit when I've made an error. However, in this particular case I think the amount of criticism I've received is really unfounded. And I believe the conclusion that some have drawn that libertarians must not care about slavery is patently absurd. I will freely admit that I don't know too much about the policies of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. I have heard a few things about the human rights abuses that take place in those two nations, but I don't know enough in depth to discuss them. However, I'd be more than happy to be educated on the issue of slavery in those two particular countries. I don't know the degree to which that is occurring, what exactly is meant by the term "slavery". I am assuming we are speaking about actual chattel slavery, human beings being sold as property? Or are you referring to workers who don't have enough Union rights vis a vis their employers but are not forced to associate with them (i.e. they can quit their jobs)? I have been aware of the different studies put out by different libertarian groups regarding the degree of economic liberty in the different nations of the world and I merely wanted to cite one such example to illustrate a particular point about wealth creation vis a vis economic liberty and the rising living standards that generally result. I frankly don't know enough about the methodology of this particular Cato study to either defend it or denounce it in its entirety. From what I have read, I understand that this particular study is weighted in support of certain criteria. That hardly means that other very important liberty issues that fall outside of the scope of this particular study are somehow unimportant or irrelevant to libertarians as has been asserted. It would be like if a libertarian group put out a study on the effects of liberal policies on drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands and someone started criticizing them for their omission of the various non-libertarian and anti-liberty policies that those countries have. "If opposition to the welfare state and opposition to coercive taxation is so important to libertarians, how could you omit those things from your study of drug and prostitution policy in the Netherlands?" It's just beyond the scope of that particular study. Your issue with Qatar is less a relevant issue in regards to the Cato list because Qatar was ranked number 13. Still high, all things considered, but given the anti-liberty stance of most nations in the world, you could easily say that all nations outside the top 10 are pretty non-libertarian in most respects. The bigger issue is the United Arab Emirates which is ranked number 5. Given what I have read about the United Arab Emirates, you would have to conclude that this study is weighted almost entirely in favor of specific economic criteria. Their legal system is heavily influenced by Sharia law after all. Interestingly a similar study by Heritage, the United Arab Emirates is ranked number 25 and Qatar is ranked number 32. This is their top 10: 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. New Zealand 4. Australia 5. Switzerland 6. Canada 7. Chile 8. Estonia 9. Ireland 10. Mauritius I would probably assume that this top 10 would be more to your liking? Many of these countries are similar to those ranked on the Cato study, but the offending two countries are nowhere in the top 20. Perhaps they weighted their study in a more equitable manner which took a broader view of liberty in general? If this better illustrates the point I was attempting to make, fine. The larger point is that the degree of economic freedom and market liberalization is heavily correlated with the average living standards, the creation of a healthy middle class and the alleviation of poverty. Now, I'm sure you could go through and pick out even some of these countries and chastise me about how they deviate from libertarian principles in one way or another. But I think that would be an unfair point because no one is claiming that they are models for libertarian society. The only claim being offered is that these are examples of relatively free economies where entrepreneurs can start businesses easily, property rights are generally respected, the currencies are fairly stable and they come closer to laissez-faire than other nations. That is the only claim being offered. I am absolutely NOT trying to avoid responsibility for making an error. I would absolutely admit to being wrong if I thought that the critique being levied against me was fair. The problem is that I'd bet none of you actually took the time to read the study, see what the scope and intent of the study was and what criteria was used. Instead the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in the top 20 prompted multiple posters to make the assertion that this proves libertarians don't care about slavery. If there is ANYTHING libertarians care about it's slavery! This is abundantly clear if you read ANY of the literature. In fact, it could be argued that libertarians are the only principled opponents of slavery. Only through a consistent application of the principle of self-ownership can a person be truly and completely opposed to slavery. Anyway, I really hope we've exhausted this particular topic for now. If it makes anyone feel better, you can refer to the Heritage rankings I listed above rather than the Cato rankings. I do take your larger point and I won't hesitate to admit to being wrong, or not understanding something properly when I am critiqued fairly. If I could ask the authors of the Cato study a question, I'd definitely ask "why did you guys rank the United Arab Emirates and Qatar so high on the list given their history of human rights abuses? Aren't these abuses related to economic liberty?" I think that would be an entirely fair question, especially given the discrepancy between the Cato study and the Heritage study regarding those two countries. I can speculate as to what they would likely say, but without knowing more I am not going to denounce the study and say I made a horrible, terrible mistake in citing it. I think this is fair, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:So I'm going to take a crack at this because, being a historical argument, it interests me as a historian. If I understand you, your basic point is that any social justice requires a sound standard of property rights to work out, and that your standard can even work out the historical injustices which many challenge you to resolve using it. Here's the problem: when faced with a massive historical socioeconomic injustice, your standard fails miserably at providing any degree of restitution. I am going to focus on slavery in the antebellum US here because I'm most familiar with it. Your standard is absolutely absurd. Yes, I fully admit that the crime of slavery was monstrous and that my plan does not fully rectify the historical injustice. The problem is that no possible solution can rectify the historical injustice. We can't go back and un-kill hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. There is no monetary compensation or land grant that could fully compensate living Native Americans for the crimes of genocide against an entire people. That is true. However, the reasonable hope is that if we start establishing and enforcing a universal standard of just property rights, while redistributing stolen property to its more rightful owner wherever and whenever it can be proven through genealogical testing and historical inquiry, past atrocities can and will become less important as time goes on. Your standard will only necessitate and exacerbate further injustice by taking money from people who had nothing to do with slavery and giving it to people whose ancestors were not enslaved. The current conditions of various peoples are based on MANY different factors. Blacks were not the only ones who suffered injustice. Jews were subject to terrible treatment and discrimination, as were the Irish, as were the Japanese. I am not claiming that the degree of past injustice for these groups were the equal of American blacks who were enslaved, but Jewish Americans and Japanese Americans have excelled despite these past injustices and now have average incomes and education levels that far exceed average whites who never had a history of suffering from such discrimination. There is a lot more to the problems facing contemporary black America than the history of slavery and white racism. You made the case that blacks whose ancestors were NOT enslaved still suffer from the legacy of slavery in less direct ways and thus deserve reparations and property transfers from other, presumably white, Americans. They also deserve I am assuming preferential treatment in College admissions, job interviews and things of that nature. I'm sure you support most State actions designed to help black Americans and you likely think they don't go nearly far enough. The problem for your position is that a lot of in depth studies have been done that show that discriminated minorities tend to excel and escape the shadow of oppression precisely to the degree in which they eschew political remedies. The Jewish and Japanese, for example, practiced solidarity in tight knit communities and developed strong entrepreneurial habits. They traded among themselves and refrained from engaging in many economic transactions with people who held bigoted views against them and they developed wealth within their communities. Unfortunately, State policies designed to help blacks have had the opposite effect in many cases. The second generation of black leaders tended to eschew the self-help doctrine and solidarity preached by the black Muslims and were largely assimilated into the Democratic party establishment and many blacks were distracted into seeking political solutions to their problems which have not served their communities well. I highly recommend the work of noted black economist and libertarian Walter Williams. He produced a documentary in the 1980s called "The State Against Blacks" and he documented all the ways in which political action and State policy have harmed black families and prevented the accumulation of wealth into predominantly black communities. In the long run, and in the interest of the welfare of blacks in America, it doesn't matter that libertarian property theory doesn't fully provide restitution for the atrocities of slavery. Your attitude seems to be one that relegates blacks to victimhood status and elevates the contemporary problem of white racism to an insurmountable obstacle that only an ongoing cycle of wealth transfer payments, State programs and the like can even begin to address. Unfortunately, this path bodes extremely bad for the welfare of black Americans as economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have repeatedly demonstrated and as the counterexamples of Japanese Americans and Jewish Americans, also the victims of racism and discrimination, demonstrate. Even if black Americans were wealthier than white Americans and contemporary anti-black racism was no problem at all, past property theft ought to be recompensed wherever it can be proven. The principle is one that establishes that theft is wrong. Period and without exception. Current blacks deserve reparations not because they aren't doing well now (which is true but besides the point) but because their ancestors were the victim of theft and thus they are more entitled to the stolen property than any other current user. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 05:24
|
|